7 ms·

How do you expect the ecosystem to look in 20 years? You're simply not thinking far enough ahead. "it's only a few right now don't worry about it" More happen.

How do you expect the ecosystem to look in 20 years? You're simply not thinking far enough ahead. "it's only a few right now don't worry about it" More happen. "okay maybe I see where you're coming from but it's still avoidable!" It continues. "I still have options I don't know what your problem is." Eventually, no choice. "How did we get here!?!?!" We need protective regulations that ensure that general computing is accessible to every citizen. Giants of industry are not entitled to control devices that they sell after they are sold.

fragmede 3y ago
20 years from now, we're still going to want to run our own software. You're worried about falling down a slippery slope, and your concerns are valid, but it's called the slippery slope fallacy for a reason.
- zlg_codes 3y ago
  I have seen no assurance that the slope is well-gritted. There is a proven inverse correlation between corporate powers and consumer freedoms. It's not fallacious in the slightest, you're simply enjoying the slide for now.
  - fragmede 3y ago
    That's your opinion. Smartphones have already brought about the trusted computing only world you fear, for non-technical users. The biggest distinction of general computing then, is the ability to run untrusted executables. Hardware is cheap enough these days that having a secure device dedicated to banking/whatever isn't out of the question. And with Google making virtual machines basically a primitive on Android, having an unlocked system but with trusted VMs inside seems to be the next step in allowing users to have local admistrative access, if they so choose. I don't doubt that ChromeBooks and iPadOS devices will. continue to be popular, but at the very least, there will always be a need for developers to have unrestricted systems to develop on, which, I believe, means that they'll exist until all software ever needed has been written.
    - zlg_codes 3y ago
      > Smartphones have already brought about the trusted computing only world you fear, for non-technical users. What's the purpose of this statement? "You've already lost" anime-style bullshit? This is proof that it's gotten worse as time has gone on. That is, it's evidence that the slope is slippery. Receding into a VM doesn't give people control; the host OS can still view everything happening in that VM. It has to in order to do its job virtualizing. I agree that we will always have a need somewhere for machines to just run code. However, I do not trust that developers will be steadfast enough to resist the inevitable anti-features that make their way into products to take control from the user. Smartphones and UEFI+secure boot enabled devices are a testament to this. It's possible to root and install your own ROM, on some models, but for how long? It's been a cat and mouse game between hackers and phone manufacturers. Today's developer systems are already infected with nannyware, unless they're running OpenPOWER or a similarly open and unencumbered system. I'm on a Librem 14 with a mostly-neutered IME (so, still x86_64), and honestly I wonder if what Purism was able to do to isolate it was enough. AMD pushes PSP with their chips, and ARM is its own strange song and dance, and licensing is a bitch. We need hardware that can be verified and trusted not by business, but by consumers. How do you think people will get developer systems if this culture of "no code is good unless it's corpo code" continues to prevail?
      - tsimionescu 3y ago
        Technology ultimately can't protect you from government and corpo snooping. It's only laws that can limit what happens, at least to some extent. And those laws are better focused on the actual collection and uses of data, than minutiae about the hardware/software. It's ultimately irrelevant that the OS could listen on you if it doesn't.
        zlg_codes 3y ago
        Windows does listen to you. So does Android.
    - yencabulator 3y ago
      > an unlocked system but with trusted VMs inside seems to be the next step in allowing users to have local admistrative access There's not a single example of that happening, as far as I know. What we get is "oh, you want general purpose access? here's a sandbox for you to play in", with the system itself remaining locked.
- _jal 3y ago
  > 20 years from now, we're still going to want to run our own software And you'll be able to, on hobby machines or VMs. But the general purpose machine where the owner controls the OS will fade. Banks, popular sites and other choke points will demand attestation of an unmodified system for access. People will talk about internet access the way they do about driving in the US - a privilege, not a right. Bet it.
  - zlg_codes 3y ago
    Let's have that conversation right now, then. What about Internet access deserves to be considered a privilege and not a right? What human is less entitled to accessing the wealth of knowledge and information available on the Internet? Discriminating who can and cannot access the Internet is not something that will be popular or defensible. If the search for knowledge itself is considered dangerous, then what of all the knowledge gathered on the public against its will? Internet access isn't remotely comparable to driving. By driving, you're exposing yourself and others to potential mortal danger. Nothing is automatic, you must be aware of, and follow, all laws concerning how it is to be operated. You have to have a license. The Internet's spirit will die the day you need a license to access it. The body will take a lot longer.
    - _jal 3y ago
      I'm not making a normative claim - I don't want a corporate mall, either. I'm making a prediction. The unregulated internet is a risk to some very powerful interests. They cannot tolerate that. And despite what some people thought early on (me included), IT is a power-amplifier, not an equalizer. I'm not optimistic.
      - zlg_codes 3y ago
        In that vein I agree, nation states are about control, and giving any control to people comes with risk. Personally, I would argue that if they can't trust their own people with basic computing power, it says a lot about the administration's character and capabilities to defend itself. Maybe don't piss off people who outnumber you and are responsible for the prosperity of the state? Royal "you", of course. That's why I think we have to go the legal route, as little as I trust society and its policies, others do. We need to consider the personal use of property as an extension of the 1st amendment, at least in the States. If I purchase a computer, I should be able to do whatever I want with it, especially if I'm not hurting anyone or violating rights. Ownership needs to mean something, or capitalism's core tenet is lost and the veil begins to slip. Building spying nanny chips and other "safeguards" are really just obstacles to ownership. It should be considered anti-consumer and a form of military-grade espionage. The John Deere escapades are a prime example of what will happen to general computing if we don't make some sort of effort to protect and enshrine computing freedom. Maybe it won't be an issue and we'll be 3D-printing PCBs from open or patent-expired schematics so it won't matter. Maybe e-waste will be enough of a problem that there will be enough to hobble along until something bigger coalesces. I'd rather not go on maybes though, and would rather vote for legislation that ensures the government will punish any business that sells me something and then tries to prevent me from exerting control over it as the owner. That is such obvious fraudulent behavior, there's no good defense for it. Business already enjoys the protection of copyright, trademark, and patent. An important aspect of business is actually parting with what you are selling, and giving up control. The control is what is being bought!
- marcus0x62 3y ago
  It’s called the slippery slope fallacy by people who don’t want to grapple with the slippery slope.
  - GauntletWizard 3y ago
    It's a logical fallacy but a rhetorical argument. Slippery slope is entirely about how likely and probable that it is you fall down the slope. We have direct evidence that the same organizationa calling for Secure Boot intend to use it for DRM, because they are quoted in sales documents touting it for that.
    - GauntletWizard 3y ago
      And to be clear: > Intel® CSME supports HW DRM that helps users enjoy premium services from third-party providers, with control access to copyright material https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/security-advisory/documents/intel-csme-security-white-paper.pdf https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/security-... This is 100% supported by manufacturers own documentation. I'm not sure it's even a slippery slope argument, when it's that clear. It's more like a murderer, caught red handed and having already dictated and signed a confession, saying "That was just a joke, I didn't really kill him"
- immibis 3y ago
  We're still going to want to, and we're not going to be able to.

fragmede 3y ago

20 years from now, we're still going to want to run our own software. You're worried about falling down a slippery slope, and your concerns are valid, but it's called the slippery slope fallacy for a reason.

zlg_codes 3y ago
I have seen no assurance that the slope is well-gritted. There is a proven inverse correlation between corporate powers and consumer freedoms. It's not fallacious in the slightest, you're simply enjoying the slide for now.
- fragmede 3y ago
  That's your opinion. Smartphones have already brought about the trusted computing only world you fear, for non-technical users. The biggest distinction of general computing then, is the ability to run untrusted executables. Hardware is cheap enough these days that having a secure device dedicated to banking/whatever isn't out of the question. And with Google making virtual machines basically a primitive on Android, having an unlocked system but with trusted VMs inside seems to be the next step in allowing users to have local admistrative access, if they so choose. I don't doubt that ChromeBooks and iPadOS devices will. continue to be popular, but at the very least, there will always be a need for developers to have unrestricted systems to develop on, which, I believe, means that they'll exist until all software ever needed has been written.
  - zlg_codes 3y ago
    > Smartphones have already brought about the trusted computing only world you fear, for non-technical users. What's the purpose of this statement? "You've already lost" anime-style bullshit? This is proof that it's gotten worse as time has gone on. That is, it's evidence that the slope is slippery. Receding into a VM doesn't give people control; the host OS can still view everything happening in that VM. It has to in order to do its job virtualizing. I agree that we will always have a need somewhere for machines to just run code. However, I do not trust that developers will be steadfast enough to resist the inevitable anti-features that make their way into products to take control from the user. Smartphones and UEFI+secure boot enabled devices are a testament to this. It's possible to root and install your own ROM, on some models, but for how long? It's been a cat and mouse game between hackers and phone manufacturers. Today's developer systems are already infected with nannyware, unless they're running OpenPOWER or a similarly open and unencumbered system. I'm on a Librem 14 with a mostly-neutered IME (so, still x86_64), and honestly I wonder if what Purism was able to do to isolate it was enough. AMD pushes PSP with their chips, and ARM is its own strange song and dance, and licensing is a bitch. We need hardware that can be verified and trusted not by business, but by consumers. How do you think people will get developer systems if this culture of "no code is good unless it's corpo code" continues to prevail?
    - tsimionescu 3y ago
      Technology ultimately can't protect you from government and corpo snooping. It's only laws that can limit what happens, at least to some extent. And those laws are better focused on the actual collection and uses of data, than minutiae about the hardware/software. It's ultimately irrelevant that the OS could listen on you if it doesn't.
      - zlg_codes 3y ago
        Windows does listen to you. So does Android.
  - yencabulator 3y ago
    > an unlocked system but with trusted VMs inside seems to be the next step in allowing users to have local admistrative access There's not a single example of that happening, as far as I know. What we get is "oh, you want general purpose access? here's a sandbox for you to play in", with the system itself remaining locked.
_jal 3y ago
> 20 years from now, we're still going to want to run our own software And you'll be able to, on hobby machines or VMs. But the general purpose machine where the owner controls the OS will fade. Banks, popular sites and other choke points will demand attestation of an unmodified system for access. People will talk about internet access the way they do about driving in the US - a privilege, not a right. Bet it.
- zlg_codes 3y ago
  Let's have that conversation right now, then. What about Internet access deserves to be considered a privilege and not a right? What human is less entitled to accessing the wealth of knowledge and information available on the Internet? Discriminating who can and cannot access the Internet is not something that will be popular or defensible. If the search for knowledge itself is considered dangerous, then what of all the knowledge gathered on the public against its will? Internet access isn't remotely comparable to driving. By driving, you're exposing yourself and others to potential mortal danger. Nothing is automatic, you must be aware of, and follow, all laws concerning how it is to be operated. You have to have a license. The Internet's spirit will die the day you need a license to access it. The body will take a lot longer.
  - _jal 3y ago
    I'm not making a normative claim - I don't want a corporate mall, either. I'm making a prediction. The unregulated internet is a risk to some very powerful interests. They cannot tolerate that. And despite what some people thought early on (me included), IT is a power-amplifier, not an equalizer. I'm not optimistic.
    - zlg_codes 3y ago
      In that vein I agree, nation states are about control, and giving any control to people comes with risk. Personally, I would argue that if they can't trust their own people with basic computing power, it says a lot about the administration's character and capabilities to defend itself. Maybe don't piss off people who outnumber you and are responsible for the prosperity of the state? Royal "you", of course. That's why I think we have to go the legal route, as little as I trust society and its policies, others do. We need to consider the personal use of property as an extension of the 1st amendment, at least in the States. If I purchase a computer, I should be able to do whatever I want with it, especially if I'm not hurting anyone or violating rights. Ownership needs to mean something, or capitalism's core tenet is lost and the veil begins to slip. Building spying nanny chips and other "safeguards" are really just obstacles to ownership. It should be considered anti-consumer and a form of military-grade espionage. The John Deere escapades are a prime example of what will happen to general computing if we don't make some sort of effort to protect and enshrine computing freedom. Maybe it won't be an issue and we'll be 3D-printing PCBs from open or patent-expired schematics so it won't matter. Maybe e-waste will be enough of a problem that there will be enough to hobble along until something bigger coalesces. I'd rather not go on maybes though, and would rather vote for legislation that ensures the government will punish any business that sells me something and then tries to prevent me from exerting control over it as the owner. That is such obvious fraudulent behavior, there's no good defense for it. Business already enjoys the protection of copyright, trademark, and patent. An important aspect of business is actually parting with what you are selling, and giving up control. The control is what is being bought!
marcus0x62 3y ago
It’s called the slippery slope fallacy by people who don’t want to grapple with the slippery slope.
- GauntletWizard 3y ago
  It's a logical fallacy but a rhetorical argument. Slippery slope is entirely about how likely and probable that it is you fall down the slope. We have direct evidence that the same organizationa calling for Secure Boot intend to use it for DRM, because they are quoted in sales documents touting it for that.
  - GauntletWizard 3y ago
    And to be clear: > Intel® CSME supports HW DRM that helps users enjoy premium services from third-party providers, with control access to copyright material https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/security-advisory/documents/intel-csme-security-white-paper.pdf https://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/security-... This is 100% supported by manufacturers own documentation. I'm not sure it's even a slippery slope argument, when it's that clear. It's more like a murderer, caught red handed and having already dictated and signed a confession, saying "That was just a joke, I didn't really kill him"
immibis 3y ago
We're still going to want to, and we're not going to be able to.